KESUVOS 16-19 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev
Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.

1) WITNESSES THAT SAY THEY SIGNED IMPROPERLY

(a) Question: Why does R. Meir say they are not believed to
say that they were forced to sign?
(b) Answer#1 (Rav Chisda): He says that witnesses should
forfeit their lives rather than sign falsely.
(c) Objection (Rava): If they would consult with us, we would
instruct them to sign and live - why should we not
believe them?!

1. One may transgress anything to save a life, except
for idolatry, incest, or murder.

(d) Answer#2 (Rava): The reason for R. Meir is as Rav Huna.
(e) Rav Huna: If Shimon admits that a document (that
obligates him) was written properly, Reuven may use the
document against Shimon, and need not prove that the
signatures are valid.
(f) Rav Nachman: Why are you deceiving people?! If you hold
as R. Meir, say, the law is as R. Meir (by saying the law
in your own name, you imply that all agree to it)!
(g) Rav Huna: How do you hold?
(h) Rav Nachman: When people come to me, I tell them to
verify the signatures first. (Otherwise, Shimon would be
believed to say that he paid, Migo he could have claimed
that the document was forged.)

2) A DOCUMENT OF TRUST

(a) (Rav Yehudah): If he says that the document is Amanah
(the loan was never made - he trusted the prospective
lender to hold but not use the document until he lends
the money), he is not believed.
(b) Question: Who is saying that it is Amanah?

1. Certainly, the borrower is not believed to say this!
2. If the lender says this - he will be blessed for his
honesty (certainly he is believed, there is no need
to teach this)!
3. It must be, the witnesses are saying this.

i. If we can verify their signatures without them
- of course they are not believed!
ii. If we cannot verify their signatures without
them - why shouldn't they be believed?

(c) Answer#1 (Rava): Really, the borrower claims that it is
Amanah - he is not believed for the reason of Rav Huna
(since he admitted that the document was written
properly, he is not believed with a Migo that he could
have said that it was forged).
(d) Answer#2 (Abaye): Really, the lender says that it is
Amanah; it is a case where his admission hurts others
(his creditors), as R. Nasan's law.

1. R. Nasan: Reuven owes Shimon, and Shimon owes Levi -
we take money from Reuven to pay Levi - "He will
give to the one to whom the principle is due".

(e) Answer#3 (Rav Ashi): Really, the witnesses say that it is
Amanah, and we cannot verify their signatures without
them.

1. They are not believed because of Rav Kahane's law.
2. (Rav Kahane): One may not keep a document of Amanah
in his house - "Do not make injustice dwell in your
home".

19b---------------------------------------19b

3. (Rav Shashes Brei d'Rav Idi): We learn from Rav
Kahane's law that witnesses are not believed to say
that the document they signed was Amanah.

i. This is because witnesses do not sign on
injustice.

(f) (R. Yehoshua Ben Levi): One may not keep a paid document
in his house - "Do not make injustice dwell in your
home".
(g) In Eretz Yisrael they say, "If there is sin in your hand,
distance it" - this refers to a document of Amanah or
Pasim (a document which was only written to make the
alleged lender appear rich); "Do not make injustice dwell
in your home" - this is a document which (the loan that
it testifies to) has been paid.

1. The opinion that says one may not keep a paid
document, all the more so says that one may not keep
a document of Amanah.
2. The opinion that says one may not keep a document of
Amanah, permits keeping a paid document - sometimes
it is kept until the borrower pays the cost of the
document.

(h) A Sefer (of Tanach) which has mistakes may not be kept
more than 30 days before fixing it - "Do not let
injustice dwell in your home".
(i) (Rav Nachman): If witnesses say that the document they
signed was Amanah or Moda'ah (a sale in which the seller
told the witnesses that he was being coerced and intends
to nullify the sale when the coercion ends), they are not
believed.
(j) (Mar Bar Rav Ashi): If witnesses say that the document
they signed was Amanah, they are not believed; if they
say there was a Moda'ah, they are believed.

1. The former should not have been written, but the
latter may be written.

3) WITNESSES THAT SAY THE TRANSACTION WAS ON CONDITION

(a) Question (Rava asking Rav Nachman): If witnesses say that
what they signed was subject to a condition, are they
believed?

1. You (Rav Nachman) say that they are not believed to
say Amanah or Moda'ah, is because this uproots the
document - the same applies to saying that it was
conditional!
2. Or perhaps, a condition is a separate matter (and is
not an uprooting of the document).

(b) Answer (Rav Nachman): When such cases come up, I tell
(the buyer) to fulfill the condition (i.e. the witnesses
are believed to say there was a condition).
(c) One witness says that it was on condition, the other says
that it was not.
(d) (Rav Papa): Both admit that the document is valid; we now
have one witness saying that there was a condition - one
witness is not believed against 2 (the signatures, which
say that the document is unconditional).
(e) Question (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If so, this
should apply even when both witnesses say that there was
a condition (they should not be believed to change their
testimony)!
(f) (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Rather, we say that the 2
are uprooting their testimony. Also when 1 says that it
was conditional, he uproots his testimony (and we are
left with only one witness on the document, which is
insufficient).

1. The law is as Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua.

(g) (Beraisa): Reuven and Shimon signed a document and died.
2 witnesses come and say that they recognize the
signatures of Reuven and Shimon, but that Reuven and
Shimon were coerced, children or invalid witnesses at the
time - they are believed;
(h) If other witnesses recognize their signatures, or we have
a document they signed which was validated by Beis Din
after there was a dispute over it, they are not believed.
(i) Question: (in the latter case) - we do not believe the
latter witnesses, and the bearer of the document may
collect with it?

4) Answer#1 (Rav Sheshes): We deduce that Hachchasha (contradiction) is
the beginning of Hazamah (disqualifying witnesses by proving that they were
not where they claimed to have seen what they testified about).